A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether or not it's a mark (according to the current definition in the ontology) probably depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu> wrote: > > > From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s on a > physical object … how can I know when that should be a Mark+Linguistic > Object, or when it is an Inscription? > > > > Rob > > > > *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr < > mar...@ics.forth.gr> > *Date: *Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM > *To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark > > > > I understand the following: > > > > This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the marks that > are not inscriptions. > > > > This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that Inscriptions are > also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT imply that there may be other > Linguistic Objects among the Marks. > > > > It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor make such > statements in the CRM. > > > > I also do not see a particular utility in this statement. > > > > All other rules A-D provided by Robert appear to be correct. > > > > Best, > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: > > E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object > > | / > > E34 Inscription > > > > > > E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects > > > > The sentence is difficult to understand. I try. > > Pr defintion: > > All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34) Inscriptions are > (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects. > > The only difference between E34 Inscription and E37 Mark is that E34 is a > restriction of E37 Mark to those which also are instances of E33 > Lingustic Object that is has a language. Most sequences of letters and > signs do not have a language. > > > > C-E > > > > *From:* Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> > <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr > <mar...@ics.forth.gr> <mar...@ics.forth.gr> > *Sent:* 18 January 2020 13:59 > *To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark > > > > I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be > regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language, > translation etc. No need to make them linguistic objects. > > > > Best, > > > > Martin > > > > On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be > solved by double instantiation? > > > > All the best, > > > > Øyvind > > > > Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber <ewg4x...@gmail.com>: > > > > I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks. > > > > I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of > letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a > mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin > correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic > objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note > for E37 Mark. > > > > Ethan > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu> > wrote: > > > > I think that I agree 😊 To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re > discussing: > > > > - A) All Marks are Symbolic Objects > - B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects > - C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects > - D) All Inscriptions are Marks > - E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects > > > > I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are > accurate. > > > > For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic > content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus > either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be > clearer about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a > subclass of Mark. > > > > For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the > Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as > short text implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think > that the scope note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this > issue. Marks should be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there > is a linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should instead be > Inscriptions. > > > > Hope that clarifies! > > > > Rob > > > > *From: *Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> > *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM > *To: *Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu>, crm-sig < > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > Yes, that is a good question! > > For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM. > > > > Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic > Object, then it is in particular an Inscription. > > But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions. > > > > However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not > separated out as complement, because following all the discussions we had > in the past, there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from > inscriptions. > > > > So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense, > which are not the codified monograms etc. > > > > isn't it? > > > > best, > > > > martin > > > > > > > > On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose > also that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short > texts” in a class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems > strange to me that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is > clearly text with a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription > if we wanted to talk about the content / meaning, rather than just the > visual appearance of some symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes > assertions about the intent, which implies a semantic understanding of the > language encoded by the symbols. > > > > Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all > inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the > creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc. Either the “etc” covers all > intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts > that are inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions. > > One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does not > seem to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent clause. > Similarly the “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct the students > of Balliol to not walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark … > yet it is one? > > > > Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it > should read: … as they are used to codify the marks in reference documents > … > > (or something like that) > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Rob > > > > > > *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> > <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr > <mar...@ics.forth.gr> <mar...@ics.forth.gr> > *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM > *To: *crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > *Subject: *[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark > > > > Dear All, > > There were questions about the level of abstraction of E37 Mark. Therefore > I rewrite, following the relevant discussions when this class was defined. > The argument was that it should directly link to the codes that are used in > museum documentation for (registered) marks. > > *Old scope note:* > > Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or > short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by > arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, > purpose, etc. > > This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic > significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented > as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature. > > *NEW* > > Scope note: This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or > short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing by > arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, > purpose, etc. Instances of E37 Mark do not represent the actual image of a > mark, but the abstract ideal, as they use to be codified in reference > documents that are used in cultural documentation. > > This class specifically excludes features that have no semantic > significance, such as scratches or tool marks. These should be documented > as instances of E25 Human-Made Feature. > > > > Can someone provide a relevant example from an authority document of marks? > > Such as > > Castagno, John. *Old Masters: Signatures and Monograms, 1400–Born 1800*. > Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996. > > Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. *Encyclopedia of Artists' Signatures, > Symbols & Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North American & European plus > More; 25,000 Examples*. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's Choice Books, 1999. > > -- > > ------------------------------------ > > Dr. Martin Doerr > > > > Honorary Head of the > > Center for Cultural Informatics > > Information Systems Laboratory > > Institute of Computer Science > > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) > > > > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, > > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece > > > > Vox:+30(2810)391625 > > Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr > > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > > > > *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content > is safe.* > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------ > > Dr. Martin Doerr > > > > Honorary Head of the > > Center for Cultural Informatics > > Information Systems Laboratory > > Institute of Computer Science > > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) > > > > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, > > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece > > > > Vox:+30(2810)391625 > > Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr > > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > > > > *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content > is safe.* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------ > > Dr. Martin Doerr > > > > Honorary Head of the > > Center for Cultural Informatics > > Information Systems Laboratory > > Institute of Computer Science > > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) > > > > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, > > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece > > > > Vox:+30(2810)391625 > > Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr > > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------ > > Dr. Martin Doerr > > > > Honorary Head of the > > Center for Cultural Informatics > > Information Systems Laboratory > > Institute of Computer Science > > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) > > > > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, > > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece > > > > Vox:+30(2810)391625 > > Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr > > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > > > > *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content > is safe.* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
